Armed Forces: Future Aircraft Carriers

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Des Browne) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I informed the House on 20 May (Official Report, col. 15WS) of our intention to sign the contracts for the manufacture of the aircraft carriers HMS "Queen Elizabeth" and HMS "Prince of Wales" once the proposed joint venture BVT Surface Fleet had formed. I am pleased to inform the House that, following formation of the company, we will today sign the contract and alliance agreement for manufacture of the two future aircraft carriers. The carriers will support a step change in our ability to project expeditionary air power over the coming decades and during their construction are expected to create or sustain 10,000 jobs across the UK.

Children: Children's Plan

Lord Adonis: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ed Balls) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	In the Children's Plan, which I presented to Parliament in December 2007, the Government set out their ambition to make this country the best place in the world for young people to grow up. As part of this we committed to world-class standards in education; a new role for schools as the centre of their communities; and more effective links between schools, health and other children's services, brought together by children's trusts in every area, so that together they can tackle all the barriers to the learning, health and happiness of every child.
	Today we are taking the next steps to make a reality of these ambitions, and are publishing three consultation documents, copies of which I have placed in the Library of the House. They each draw heavily on the experience, best practice and views of local authorities, schools and other key partners, for which I am most grateful.
	Schools have traditionally taken a broad view of education as the development of the whole child, in order to tackle all the barriers to learning inside and outside the school, so that every child can fulfil their potential and get the good qualifications they need. The Government have supported this by placing on schools a duty to promote the well-being of their pupils. This means they have a duty to support the development of all their pupils across all five Every Child Matters outcomes, so that they are healthy, safe, able to enjoy and achieve their potential, secure economic well-being and can make a positive contribution.
	The first of the three consultation documents is draft guidance to schools, which explains in more detail what is meant by "promoting well-being" and what support schools should expect from their local authority and other partners in their children's trust. At the heart of the Children's Plan is the vision of a "21st century school": a school which achieves high standards and embraces its role in the wider development of young people, in support of its core mission of ensuring through excellent teaching and learning that all children achieve their potential, and in partnership with parents, other schools and other local agencies. Schools need to be well supported by, and able to work effectively with, a range of other partners including statutory services and the voluntary and community sector, and children's trust arrangements are intended to bring together all these services locally.
	The second document consults on how we should strengthen children's trusts in order to deliver for all children and young people; to ensure schools consistently get the timely support they need; to narrow gaps in outcomes between disadvantaged young people and their peers; and to take action early where children have additional needs. A great deal is being achieved by leading local areas within the existing framework, and the challenge now is to ensure that good practice is widely implemented and deeply embedded. There is now a strong case for strengthening the statutory basis of children's trusts on the model of existing good practice.
	Schools are key partners for children's trusts at the local and neighbourhood level, and are well placed to give early warning when things are going wrong for young people. To achieve the objectives of the Children's Plan, schools must be effectively supported by wider children's services and involved in determining the strategic direction and commissioning arrangements for those services at board level. Strong collaborative working of this kind is generally welcomed in principle, but in practice can be difficult to achieve. This was a key message from our recent consultation on our draft supplementary guidance to local authorities and others on the "duty to co-operate" (children's trust guidance).
	The second document proposes a number of changes to the current framework for children's trusts. These include extending responsibility for children and young people's plans and being clearer about what they should cover, extending the "duty to co-operate" to schools, and requiring through statute the creation of children's trust boards with a defined set of functions and responsibilities. Our proposals include:
	requiring all areas to have a children and young people's plan, and extending ownership of the plan to all statutory partners. Children and young people's plans are currently local authority plans, although they must consult with other partners and the plans must cover the full range of outcomes for children. Extending responsibility for the plan to all partners covered by the duty to co-operate would mean that the plan becomes the shared responsibility of the children's trust board; strengthening the statutory framework for children and young people's plans through secondary legislation. This could include clarifying that plans must be agreed by all partners, set out the arrangements for early intervention, including for the children's workforce, and specify the spend of each partner on areas such as child health and youth offending, in particular those covered by local joint commissioning arrangements. This would establish a higher baseline for the quality of plans, in line with the best practice already established in many areas;extending the "duty to co-operate" to schools, schools forums and sixth-form and further education colleges, with future academies brought within the scope through their funding agreements. This duty currently applies to local authorities, primary care trusts and other strategic partners. Extending the duty to front-line providers of education would give them corresponding rights within trusts to a stronger voice, more influence over their strategic arrangements and better support from other statutory partners; and establishing a stronger statutory basis for children's trust boards, on the model of existing good practice and with significant local flexibility. Leading local areas have already put in place children's trust boards, which have the representation and functions that primary or secondary legislation could prescribe for all. Setting out core membership and functions in legislation could help secure more consistent performance and more robust operation of children's trusts. An alternative would be to create reserve powers for Ministers to direct areas when local arrangements are not operating successfully.
	I have invited comments on these proposals and on what other changes to primary or secondary legislation should be considered in this area, for example to ensure the voluntary and third sectors can play a full role in local children's services.
	The third document relates specifically to the local authority's strategic leadership role in promoting high standards in education, as established by the Education and Inspections Act 2006. This is a key part of their wider role in promoting the well-being of all children and young people in their local area. The 2006 Act provides the current legal framework for schools causing concern, and makes a crucial contribution to school improvement by enabling early action by local authorities to improve school performance.
	Local authorities may already consider a formal warning notice which allows them to employ a range of intervention powers, even where Ofsted has not graded the school as "inadequate". It is important that these powers are used when it is appropriate, because they are designed to address issues where schools are underperforming before they become more serious. As announced to Parliament on 10 June 2008 as part of our national challenge proposals, the Government propose, subject to the agreement of Parliament, to take a new legislative power in the Education and Skills Bill to require authorities to consider formal warning notices when these are clearly justified by the school's performance, and proposes to extend the current power to require authorities to take additional advisory services where this is necessary.
	The Children's Plan set out a vision in which local authorities, schools and other local providers work together and support each other, both in setting the direction and in driving delivery. The three documents published today, taken together, gives us a framework that will help make this vision a reality. The consultations will remain open until 25 September 2008.

Constitutional Reform: Governance of Britain

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Jack Straw) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On 3 July 2007 (Official Report, col. 815), the Prime Minister made a Statement to Parliament publishing the Governance of Britain Green Paper. The Green Paper set out a route map for further constitutional reform, better to strengthen the relationship between government, Parliament and the citizen, and to take steps towards a new constitutional settlement. This builds on fundamental reforms carried out by the Government since 1997, including devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the transformation of the role of the Lord Chancellor, the introduction of a Supreme Court, the Human Rights Act and the Freedom of Information Act.
	Renewing our democracy is at the heart of our reforms, building a new relationship between citizens and government and ensuring that the rights of individuals are fully respected.
	One year on, much progress has been made against the Governance of Britain ambitions.
	Limiting the powers of the Executive
	The Government committed to surrendering or limiting powers which they consider should not, in a modern democracy, be exercised exclusively by the Executive.
	We have carried out consultations on Parliament's role in decisions relating to the deployment of the Armed Forces into armed conflict and the ratification of treaties, the role of the Attorney-General, government's role in judicial appointments, protests around Parliament and the flying of the union flag. Alongside the responses to the Government's 2004 consultation on the Civil Service, these consultations informed the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill and White Paper, which are now being considered by a Joint Committee. The draft Constitutional Renewal Bill contains important measures to strengthen Parliament and make government more accountable to the people they serve.
	It encompasses five areas of reform, and includes proposals to:
	repeal the provisions in Sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act on protest around Parliament;reform the role of the Attorney-General;reduce the role played by the Lord Chancellor in judicial appointments;formalise the procedure for Parliament to scrutinise treaties prior to ratification; andenshrine in statute the core values of the Civil Service, as well as the historical principle of appointment on merit, and place the Civil Service Commissioners on to a statutory footing.
	The Government also want Parliament to have the right to take the final decision about committing Armed Forces to armed conflict.
	Making the Executive more accountable
	The Government are committed to rebalancing power between Parliament and government, and giving Parliament greater ability to hold government to account. We have:
	published the draft legislative programme for scrutiny by Parliament and the public in 2007 and 2008;commenced a pilot of pre-appointment hearings for key public appointments and agreed a list of 60 suitable appointments with the Liaison Committee;published the national security strategy for the first time; andset up an independent UK Statistics Authority.
	Re-invigorating our democracy
	It is vital that our institutions are legitimate, trusted and responsive to the people they serve. We have:
	established the Youth Citizenship Commission to look at how we can give young people a greater voice; andcommitted to extending the provisions in the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 beyond 2015 to allow women-only shortlists to continue to be used if necessary.
	Britain's future: the citizen and the state
	The Government believe that a clearer understanding of the common core of rights, responsibilities and values that go with British citizenship will help build our sense of shared identity and social cohesion. Lord Goldsmith's review of citizenship was launched on 5 October 2007 and reported to the Prime Minister in March 2008. Constitutional renewal in the UK is a long-term dialogue, and in the coming months:
	we will publish a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals for fundamental reform of the House of Lords; andthe Department for Communities and Local Government will publish a White Paper this summer setting out the Government's proposals to empower individuals and communities by involving them in the design and delivery of local public services and promoting civic and democratic life.
	Further details of the progress on the commitments in the Green Paper are set out in the table entitled "The Governance of Britain Green Paper: One Year On". Copies of this table have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Questions for Written Answer: Correction to Commons Answer

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Transport (Rosie Winterton) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I regret to inform the House that the Answer I gave on 7 February to a Parliamentary Question (Official Report, col. 1422W], about traffic signs for the central London congestion charging scheme was not sufficiently clear in respect of advance warning signs for the scheme.
	The Answer should read as follows:
	The department has authorised the design of 28 traffic signs and road markings for the central London congestion charging scheme under Sections 64 and 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. These designs have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The table below shows when these authorisations were provided:
	
		
			 Traffic signs (numbers) Date authorised 
			 1-18 7 August 2002 
			 19-21 29 November 2002 
			 22 6 January 2005 
			 23 14 November 2005 
			 24-28 1 November 2006 
		
	
	In addition, the department authorised:
	the use of sign number 6 from the above table, with the motorway telephone symbol, as shown in traffic signs regulations and general directions diagram 2713.1 (15 January 2003) ; andthe legend "Avoiding Charge" to be placed on advance direction signs (9 May 2005).
	There are no drawings for these signs.
	The authorisation to place non-prescribed traffic signs in respect of the central London congestion charging scheme, dated 7 August 2002, requires signs indicating the entry and exit of the London charging zone to be placed on or near roads entering or exiting the scheme, and in sufficient numbers and in appropriate positions to indicate to all traffic entering or leaving the zone the nature of the scheme. That direction does not apply to the authorised signs warning drivers on the approaches to the zone. Those signs are therefore discretionary.

Gershon Review: Treasury

Lord Davies of Oldham: My right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Yvette Cooper) has made the following Written Statement.
	Today I am launching the operational efficiency programme, the latest phase of our drive to ensure that taxpayers receive maximum value for money from the services they fund.
	This builds on the Gershon efficiency programme, which has delivered £20 billion savings to date, and the ambitious programme announced at the Comprehensive Spending Review, which will deliver £30 billion savings by 2010-11. The operational efficiency programme will seek to learn from private and public sector expertise and experience to explore whether additional operational savings could be achieved as we prepare for the next spending period. Martin Read, Martin Jay, Gerry Grimstone and Lord Carter of Coles will lead work on the first four cross-cutting work strands, looking at back office and IT; collaborative procurement; asset management and sales; and property respectively. It will also be taking forward work in a fifth area: the incentives for staff to make improvements and cut waste at the local level and what more can be done to reduce bureaucratic burdens on the front line.
	The programme will report at the 2009 Budget and will drive our value for money programme forward into the next spending review. Copies of the operational efficiency programme prospectus have been deposited in the Libraries of the House and are available from the Vote Office.

Prisoners: Foreign Nationals

Lord Malloch-Brown: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (David Miliband) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On 21 February I made a Statement to the House regarding new information we had been passed by the US Government regarding rendition. Contrary to earlier assurances that Diego Garcia had not been used for rendition flights, US investigations had revealed two occasions, both in 2002, when this had in fact occurred. Since February, I have corresponded with Secretary Rice on this issue, and our officials have continued to work through the details and implications of the new information.
	I promised the House that, as part of this process, my officials would compile a list of flights where we had been alerted to concern about rendition through the UK or our Overseas Territories. The list which they have compiled, containing 391 flights, reflects concerns put to us by honourable Members, the public, multilateral organisations and non-governmental organisations. Inclusion on this list does not represent an official endorsement of any allegations about a particular flight. On the contrary, US government flights, as with other government flights, occur regularly for a variety of purposes. Our intention was to collate in one place those concerns that had been put to us directly. The list was passed to the US on 15 May. I undertook in February to publish the list and have today placed a copy in the Library of the House and published it on the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk).
	The United States Government received the list of flights from the UK Government. The United States Government confirmed that, with the exception of two cases related to Diego Garcia in 2002, there have been no other instances in which US intelligence flights landed in the United Kingdom, our Overseas Territories or the Crown Dependencies with a detainee on board since 11 September 2001.
	Our US allies are agreed on the need to seek our permission for any future renditions through UK territory. Secretary Rice has underlined to me the firm US understanding that there will be no rendition through the UK, our Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies or airspace without first receiving our express permission. We have made clear that we would only grant such permission if we were satisfied that the rendition would accord with UK law and our international obligations. The circumstances of any such request would be carefully examined on a case-by-case basis.
	Our intelligence and counter-terrorism relationship with the US is vital to the national security of the United Kingdom. There must and will continue to be the strongest possible intelligence and counter-terrorism relationship between our two countries, consistent with UK law and our international obligations.

Supreme Court

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Jack Straw), has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I wish to update the House on the construction costs of the Supreme Court for the United Kingdom.
	The overall development of the Supreme Court is progressing according to plan and we expect to open the Supreme Court as predicted for the start of the legal year in October 2009.
	At the beginning of 2008 some movement to the fabric of the building was found around the parapet and tower at Middlesex Guildhall. Over the years water penetration had reached structural steelwork embedded within the masonry at high level. The steel has corroded causing movement and cracking of the stone facing of the building.
	The damage is, I am told, not a significant risk to delivery of the new Supreme Court. Repairing it will increase the overall cost of the building by around £2 million above those costs announced by my predecessor in June 2007.
	In 2007 Lord Falconer reported estimated set-up costs of £56.9 million (£36.7 million for building work, and £20.2 million for professional adviser fees, programme team costs, furniture, IT services and library costs).
	We continue to work closely with Westminster City Council and English Heritage to preserve and protect this important building for future generations.
	In addition, the security provision at Middlesex Guildhall has been reassessed in line with other high-profile central government and court buildings in central London. We expect this to increase the overall construction costs to the programme and will inform the House when we have the final figure.

Vehicle and Operator Services Agency

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jim Fitzpatrick) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I would like to inform the House about the future of testing services provided by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) of the Department for Transport.
	VOSA plays a key role in the delivery of the Government's road safety strategy, through a combination of tests and enforcement, to ensure that heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles, and their drivers, comply with EU and national standards.
	The Government have already announced on 22 April 2008 [Official Report, Commons; col. 1893W] an additional £24 million funding for enforcement, over three years, to boost VOSA's efforts to crack down on those who fail to comply with these standards, following successful pilots which demonstrated what could be achieved by more focused and targeted enforcement activity.
	I am announcing today parallel improvements in the agency's testing services, which are broadly equivalent to the MoT requirement for cars, and equally vital to road safety, based around modernisation and flexibility. The aim is to improve access to good quality test centres, and reduce the time when vehicles are unavailable, so that the industry is helped to comply with road safety laws and operate more efficiently.
	Operators can currently choose between presenting vehicles for testing at VOSA stations or—in nearly 20 per cent of cases—arranging for VOSA staff to deliver the tests at operators' own premises, where vehicles are maintained and run. The current structure of fees incentivises the use of VOSA premises, but the location of these predates the motorways, and many are no longer in the right place for customers. Most are also in need of investment.
	My aim is to make both sides of this choice for customers better.
	First, I want to facilitate more VOSA tests at operators' premises, and at more convenient times. This is a proven model of delivery, with recognised benefits in terms of reduced loss of productive time, and I believe industry will welcome removing constraints on its expansion. I also want to facilitate more VOSA tests at service and maintenance providers' premises to improve quality of service and choice.
	Secondly, for VOSA's own testing stations, the principle must be: "fewer, but better". I aim quickly to identify those sites for which there is a continuing requirement so that we can get on with investing and upgrading the service that they can provide. To this end, I am making £28 million available to the agency this year, the greater part of which will go towards modernisation of testing facilities and IT support, and I can announce that up to a further £36 million will be available over the next two years to support the agency's investment requirements.
	Upgrading customer service is not just a matter of improving facilities. Work by the agency has also identified the scope for improving the way in which business is done—for example, by extending opening hours and benchmarking between test stations. I intend to increase choice for customers not just about where testing is done but also when. Customers should be more able to access testing at times that provide least disruption to the commercial scheduling of their vehicles.
	My purpose in making this Statement has been, first, to resolve the uncertainty that has existed about VOSA's future, while different organisational options were being reviewed. With that work now completed, I see a clear agenda to be taken forward by a public sector VOSA. There will be a call on private sector skills to help with specialised tasks such as estate refurbishment, but I am confident that the main changes are ones that VOSA has the flexibility and commitment to drive through.
	Secondly, having set out a clear direction, it is important now to have dialogue with the freight industry and others about the detailed implementation. The intention is to develop a more detailed and timetabled plan for these changes by the autumn, and I will invite industry views in taking that work forward.
	My aim, which is fully shared by the dedicated staff of the agency, is to create a testing service fit for the 21st century. Building on VOSA's undoubted strengths, we will improve customer service, optimise delivery by investment and increasing flexibility, and so achieve better testing and lower costs of compliance.